WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude from all of these studies that the falling metal which poured out of WTC 2 is NOT aluminum. Nine years later, NIST still has not conducted its own experiments to verify its hypothesis, nor has it revised its FAQs to account for the results of Dr. Jones’ experiments.
Molten Metal in the Debris Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below: ■■
Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: “We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this.’ And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing.”2
■■
FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.”
NIST’s first approach was to omit the evidence of molten metal from its final report. Then, in its August 2006 FAQs, it addressed that evidence with the following question and answer. 13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers? NIST investigators…found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing…. Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. Each claim in NIST’s answer is demonstrably unscientific: ■■
In the first sentence, NIST assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face.
■■
NIST’s next claim — “The condition of the steel in the wreckage…was irrelevant to the investigation…since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing” — flies in the face of forensic investigation principles. Recall NFPA 921, which explicitly advises, “Indicators of exotic accelerants include…melted steel or concrete.” Furthermore, in science, evidence is not ignored on the basis that it is not conclusive by itself. NIST’s claim is yet more problematic because molten metal was observed pouring out of WTC 2 — “when the WTC towers were standing” — as NIST documented extensively.
Other firefighters chimed in: “Like lava.” “Like lava from a volcano.”3 ■■
Ken Holden, the
Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construc-
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
tion, testified before
32
the 9/11 Commission: “Underground it was still so hot that molten This photograph, taken by Frank Silecchia on September 27, 2001, shows a piece of metal being dug up that is salmon-to-yellow color, indicating temperatures from 845°C (1,550°F) to 1,040°C (1,900°F).
metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”4
According to NIST, the highest temperature reached by the fires was 1,100°C. Yet structural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F). How then did NIST explain the evidence of molten metal?
